Defects in the glycosaminoglycan layer (GAG) of the bladder mucosa have been identified as a significant contributor to the pathogenesis and clinical progression of chronic inflammatory diseases of the bladder, such as post-radiation cystitis, bladder pain syndrome and recurrent urinary tract infections. This narrative review aims to explore the contemporary evidence on the role of GAG reconstitution with intravesical installations of hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate in the management of those patients, with a goal to provide valuable insights for clinical practice. The reviewed studies consistently demonstrate that GAG reconstitution can result in varying degrees of clinical improvement in patients with post-radiation cystitis, bladder pain syndrome and recurrent urinary tract infections, and is associated with a very favorable safety profile. While the available evidence is growing, its level is still limited, mainly by relatively low number of randomized controlled trials, with small sample sizes. Further research with larger, well-designed trials is needed to solidify the findings and optimize the clinical application of GAG reconstitution.

Purpose of the Report: Although multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is commonly used for the primary staging of prostate cancer, it may miss non-enlarged metastatic lymph nodes. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA PET-CT) is a promising method to detect non-enlarged metastatic lymph nodes, but more data are needed. Materials and Methods: In this single-center, prospective study, we enrolled patients with intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy with pelvic node dissection. Before surgery, prostate imaging with mpMRI and PSMA PET-CT was used to assess lymph node involvement (LNI), extra-prostatic extension (EPE), and seminal vesicle involvement (SVI). Additionally, we used clinical nomograms to estimate the risk of these three outcomes. Results: Of the 74 patients included, 61 (82%) had high-risk prostate cancer, and the rest had intermediate-risk cancer. Histopathology revealed LNI in 20 (27%) patients, SVI in 26 (35%), and EPE in 52 (70%). PSMA PET-CT performed better than mpMRI at detecting LNI (area under the curve (AUC, 95% confidence interval): 0.779 (0.665–0.893) vs. 0.655 (0.529–0.780)), but mpMRI was better at detecting SVI (AUC: 0.775 (0.672–0.878) vs. 0.585 (0.473–0.698)). The MSKCC nomogram performed well at detecting both LNI (AUC: 0.799 (0.680–0.918)) and SVI (0.772 (0.659–0.885)). However, when the nomogram was used to derive binary diagnoses, decision curve analyses showed that the MSKCC nomogram provided less net benefit than mpMRI and PSMA PET-CT for detecting SVI and LNI, respectively. Conclusions: mpMRI and [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT are complementary techniques to be used in conjunction for the primary T and N staging of prostate cancer.

Prostate biopsy is recommended in cases of positive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), defined as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) category ≥ 3. However, most men with positive MRIs will not be diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). Our goal was to evaluate pre-biopsy characteristics that influence the probability of a csPC diagnosis in these patients. We retrospectively analyzed 740 consecutive men with a positive MRI and no prior PC diagnosis who underwent MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsies of the prostate in three centers. csPC detection rates (CDRs) for each PIRADS category were calculated. Patient, disease, and lesion characteristics were studied for interdependencies with the csPC diagnosis. The CDR in patients with PIRADS categories 3, 4, and 5 was 10.5%, 30.7%, and 54.6%, respectively. On both uni- and multivariable regression models, older age, being biopsy-naïve, prostate specific antigen ≥ 10 ng/mL, smaller prostate volume, PIRADS > 3, a larger maximum lesion size, a lesion in the peripheral zone, and a positive digital rectal examination were associated with csPC. In this large, multicenter study, we provide new data regarding CDRs in particular PIRADS categories. In addition, we present several strong predictors that further alter the risk of csPC in MRI-positive patients. Our results could help in refining individual risk assessment, especially in PIRADS 3 patients, in whom the risk of csPC is substantially low.

Background: We investigated whether an incidental diagnosis (ID) of bladder cancer (BC) was associated with improved survival. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data of consecutive patients with no prior diagnosis of urothelial cancer who underwent a primary transurethral resection of bladder tumor (pTURBT) between January 2013 and February 2021 and were subsequently diagnosed with urothelial BC. The type of diagnosis (incidental or non-incidental) was identified. Overall, relative, recurrence-free, and progression-free survival rates (OS, RS, RFS, and PFS) after pTURBT were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier curves and long-rank tests. A multivariable Cox regression model for the overall mortality was developed. Results: A total of 435 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 2.7 years. ID cases were more likely to be low-grade (LG) and non-muscle-invasive. ID vs. non-ID was associated with a trend toward an improved 7-year OS (66% vs. 49%, p = 0.092) and a significantly improved 7-year OS, if incidental cases were limited to ultrasound-detected tumors (75% vs. 49%, p = 0.013). ID was associated with improved survival among muscle-invasive BC (MIBC) patients (3-year RS: 97% vs. 23%, p < 0.001), but not among other subgroups stratified according to disease stage or grade. In multivariable analysis, only age, MIBC, and high-grade (HG) cancer demonstrated an association with mortality. PFS and RFS among non-MIBC patients did not differ in regard to the type of diagnosis. Conclusions: Incidental diagnosis may contribute to an improved survival in BC patients, most probably in the mechanism of the relative downgrading of the disease, including the possible overdiagnosis of LG tumors. Nevertheless, in the subgroup analyses, we noted marked survival benefits in MIBC cases. Further prospective studies are warranted to gain a deeper understanding of the observed associations.

We aimed to assess whether the ongoing course of the COVID-19 epidemic has been associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology (AP) findings in prostate cancer (PC) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We performed a retrospective data analysis which included 408 consecutive, non-metastatic, previously untreated PC patients who underwent RP in our institution between March 2020 and September 2021. Patients were divided into two equally numbered groups in regard to the median surgery date (Early Epidemic [EE] and Late Epidemic [LE]) and compared. Adverse pathology was defined as either grade group (GG) ≥ 4, pT ≥ 3a or pN+ at RP. Patients in the LE group demonstrated significantly higher rates of AP than in the EE group (61 vs. 43% overall and 50 vs. 27% in preoperative non-high-risk subgroup, both p < 0.001), mainly due to higher rates of upgrading. On multivariable analysis, consecutive epidemic week (odds ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00–1.03, p = 0.009) as well as biopsy GG ≥ 2 and a larger prostate volume (mL) were associated with AP in non-high-risk patients. The study serves as a warning call for increased awareness of risk underassessment in contemporarily treated PC patients.

Background: Data on Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) amount in biopsy tissue is important for prostate cancer (PC) risk assessment. We aim to investigate which GP4 quantification method predicts adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) the best in men diagnosed with intermediate-risk (IR) PC at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy. Methods: We retrospectively included 123 patients diagnosed with IR PC (prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/mL, grade group (GG) 2 or 3, no iT3 on MRI) at MRI-guided biopsy, who underwent RP. Twelve GP4 amount-related parameters were developed, based on GP4 quantification method (absolute, relative to core, or cancer length) and site (overall, targeted, systematic biopsy, or worst specimen). Additionally, we calculated PV×GP4 (prostate volume × GP4 relative to core length in overall biopsy), aiming to represent the total GP4 volume in the prostate. The associations of GP4 with AP (GG ≥ 4, ≥pT3a, or pN1) were investigated. Results: AP was reported in 39 (31.7%) of patients. GP4 relative to cancer length was not associated with AP. Of the 12 parameters, the highest ROC AUC value was seen for GP4 relative to core length in overall biopsy (0.65). an even higher AUC value was noted for PV × GP4 (0.67), with a negative predictive value of 82.8% at the optimal threshold. Conclusions: The lack of an association of GP4 relative to cancer length with AP, contrasted with the better performance of other parameters, indicates directions for future research on PC risk stratification to accurately identify patients who may not require immediate treatment. Incorporating formulas aimed at GP4 volume assessment may lead to obtaining models with the best discrimination ability.